Indian Antiquary Vol 03

SR No.: 032495
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 420
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 41

JANUARY, 1874.]
the other being nripa instead of nava. But the former (nava) is the one adopted by Nârâyana, who only makes mention of this latter in the body of the commentary. From this circumstance we may infer that the latter was one to which much credit was not attached by Pandits, and was considered by them as being untrustworthy and surreptitious.
MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE.
P. N. PORNAIYA, B.A., Attaché, Mysore Commission, Bangalore.
CHAND'S MENTION OF SRI HARSHA AND KALIDASA AGAIN.
I cited my authorities in the number of the Indian Antiquary for August 1873 to show that the Naishadha is not, as Mr. Growse supposes, a poem of considerable antiquity. In the October number of your journal Mr. Growse comes forward and simply dismisses my arguments as premature and dogmatic. Why, is more than I can make out. I still hold to my opinion as firmly as ever. I do not, however, hereby mean to assert positively that I am in the right. Far from it. I may be wrong. But Mr. Growse has not shown where and how I am wrong. Instead of dismissing my paper as premature and dogmatic, if he had kindly taken the trouble to shew the unsoundness of my arguments, he would have secured my thanks, and at the same time done much good to the subject itself. I have thought again on the matter, and I still think that Chand's mention of the poets in his exordium was not all in chronological order. Bearing in my mind the arguments adduced in my former article, I am still more inclined to the opinion by further circumstances. Śri Harsha was a contemporary of Chand. The former flourished in the court of Jaya Chandra of Kanauj, and the latter in that of Prithirâj; and both the kings were cousins and contemporaneous. Raja Sekhara is my authority on this point. I deem his version to be worthy of credit, inasmuch as his account quite chimes in with the finishing lines with which Sri Harsha concludes each of his works. Chand may have mentioned the names of Sesh-Någ, Vishnu, Vyâsa, Suka-Deva, in chronological order; but it does not seem that the names of Sri Harsha and Kâlidâsa have been so placed. On the contrary, they appear to have been treated in order of merit, Sri Harsha having the preference. For Kålidâsa is known to the present generation only as a poet of high order. His thoughts are simple, chaste, and his images are quite natural and suggested by the subjects he
31
describes. There is not a single passage in his works in which the reader has any trouble to make out the true sentiment of the poet. But the moderns have gone quite the contrary way. To them the darker the obscurity the greater the excellence. This is certainly a vitiated tendency of the modern unpoetic age. Śri Harsha was not only a great poet, but also a profound philosopher. But his language is not so very easy to comprehend. A single passage of his has, or at least can be construed to have, several distinct concealed meanings, which, as might naturally be supposed, strike only a profound scholar who has a vast command over the language. The Naishadha Charita of Sri Harsha is known among the modern critics as a poem of considerable merit. It is superior even to Kâlidâsâ's, Mâghâ's, or Bharavi's works ;* and it is not unlikely that as a modern, carried away by his feelings, Chand may have given preference to Sri Harsha and placed his name before that of Kalidasa. It is also probable that he did this to honour the contemporary author Śri Harsha, who flourished in the court of the cousin of his patron Prithiraj, and who for the time being was the admired and adored of the whole country.
There is a controversy going on as to the true meaning of the passage जिनै सेतवंध्यौ तिभोजन प्रवन्धं. Permit me to add my interpretation of the passage. I take Setu-Bandhya and Bhoja Prabandha to be the names of two distinct works. Chand was mistaken in ascribing Bhoja Prabhandha to Kalidasa, and was probably led into the error by a few beautiful slokas which the real author, Ballâla, puts in the mouth of Kâlidâsa when treating of him in the legend. As for Setu-Bardha, it probably refers to Setu-Kavya, a work which Kâlidâsa wrote in conmemoration of the Nau Setu, or Bridge of Boats, erected by Pravara Sena over the Vetasta. Bâna wrote a passage in praise of this didactive poem in the Harsha Charita :
कीर्तिः प्रवरसेनस्य प्रयाता कुमुदोज्ज्वला | सागरस्य परं पारं कपिसेनेव सेतुना ॥ निर्गतासु नवा कस्य कालिदासस्य सूक्तिषु । प्रीतिर्मधुरसार्द्रासु मंजरीष्विव जायते ॥ RAM DAS SEN.
To the Editor of the "Indian Antiquary." SIR, Though taking necessarily a deep interest in the discussion now going on in your columfis between Drs. Hoernle and Pischel on the origin of the genitive form in the Modern Aryan languages,
* उपमा कालिदासस्य भारवेरर्थगौरवम् । नैषधे पदलालित्यं माघे सन्ति त्रयो गुणाः ॥ उदिते नैषधे काव्ये व माघः क्व च भारविः ।